Venice PI, LLC v. Doe 1 et al
MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice plaintiff's motions to effect service via mail, dkt. nos. (30 in 2:17-cv-01403-TSZ), (31 in 2:17-cv-01211-TSZ), (28 in 2:17-cv-01075-TSZ), (37 in 2:17-cv-01074-TSZ) ; directing Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE withi n twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this Minute Order why its claims in each captioned action should not be dismissed ; RENOTING Defendant Jonathan Dutczak's (22 in 2:17-cv-00990-TSZ) MOTION to Dismiss : Noting Date 2/16/2018 ; directing Defendant Jonathan Dutczak to submit a declaration under oath on or before 2/12/2018. Authorized by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (SWT) (cc: All pro se litigants via USPS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
VENICE PI, LLC,
SEAN O’LEARY JR., et al.,
JONATHAN DUTCZAK, et al.,
MARTIN RAWLS, et al.,
INA SICOTORSCHI, et al.,
GREGORY SCOTT, et al.,
YELENA TKACHENKO, et al.,
CELINA POTTER, et al.,
TONJA LAIBLE, et al.,
VICTOR TADURAN, et al.,
JESSE COOPER, et al.,
JASMINE PATERSON, et al.,
DAVID MEINERT, et al.,
The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable
Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff’s motions to effect service via mail, docket no. 37 in C17-1074,
18 docket no. 28 in C17-1075, docket no. 31 in C17-1211, and docket no. 30 in C17-1403,
are DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff shall cease all efforts to effect service in any of
19 the pending cases until further order of the Court.
In every case now before the Court, plaintiff has filed a corporate disclosure
form indicating that it is owned by Lost Dog Productions, LLC, which is owned by
21 Voltage Productions, LLC. See, e.g., Pla.’s Corp. Disclosure (C17-988, docket no. 4).
The Statement of Information (“SOI”) filed on behalf of plaintiff with the California
22 Secretary of State lists Lost Dog Productions, LLC as the manager or member of Venice
MINUTE ORDER - 1
1 PI, LLC. See https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/. The SOI shows the same address for
both Venice PI, LLC and Lost Dog Productions, LLC, namely 116 N. Robertson Blvd.,
2 Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90048. A search of the California Secretary of State’s online
database, however, reveals no registered entity with the name “Lost Dog” or “Lost Dog
3 Productions.” Moreover, although “Voltage Pictures, LLC” is registered with the
California Secretary of State, and has the same address as Venice PI, LLC, the parent
4 company named in plaintiff’s corporate disclosure form, “Voltage Productions, LLC,”
cannot be found in the California Secretary of State’s online database and does not appear
5 to exist.
In response to the Minute Order entered November 3, 2017 (see, e.g.,
C17-988, docket no. 27), requiring plaintiff to provide an offer of proof, plaintiff has filed
a declaration by Benjamin Perino, Chief Executive Officer of GuardaLey LTD, a German
company. In such declaration, Perino asserts that he created the surveillance software at
issue, which is licensed by GuardaLey to MaverickEye UG, also a German company.
Perino Decl. at ¶¶ 5 & 11 (see, e.g., C17-988, docket no. 29). Perino has been proffered
as an expert, but his qualifications consist of a technical high school education and work
experience unrelated to the peer-to-peer file-sharing technology known as BitTorrent.
Id. at ¶¶ 6-10. According to Perino, the infringement detection system at issue “cannot
yield a false positive.” Id. at ¶ 37. Perino does not have the qualifications necessary to
be considered an expert in the field in question, and his opinion that the surveillance
program is incapable of error is both contrary to common sense and inconsistent with
plaintiff’s counsel’s conduct in other matters in this district.1 Plaintiff has not submitted
an adequate offer of proof.
To support its previously granted motions for leave to issue subpoenas
14 seeking the identities of subscribers associated with particular Internet protocol (“IP”)
addresses, plaintiff relied on substantively identical declarations of Daniel Arheidt, a
In matters pursued by plaintiff’s counsel, David Lowe of Lowe Graham Jones PLLC, on
16 behalf of LHF Productions, Inc., CELL Film Holdings, LLC, Criminal Productions, Inc., and
ME2 Productions Inc., the claims against defendants represented by J. Christopher Lynch of Lee
17 & Hayes, PLLC, have been dismissed, in each instance within just days after Lowe received a
letter from Lynch indicating that the defendant had been wrongly accused of infringement via the
same detection system that is at issue in this litigation. See https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/
2017/04/05/copyright-troll-david-lowe-dropped-eleventh-defendant-after-defense-attorneythreatened-to-expose-fraud/ (cited in Def. Dutczak’s Resp. at 6, C17-990, docket no. 44);
see also C16-1017 RSM (docket nos. 32 & 52); C16-1180 RSL (docket no. 26); C16-1272 RAJ
(docket no. 35); C16-1273 RSM (docket no. 31); C16-1351 RAJ (docket no. 29); C16-1588
RSM (docket no. 35); C16-1647 RAJ (docket no. 27); C16-1648 RSM (docket no. 24); C17-99
RSL (docket no. 12); cf. Clear Skies Nevada, LLC v. Hancock, 2017 WL 3642034 at *2
(N.D. Ill. Aug. 23, 2017) (“Defendant compellingly suggests that Plaintiff moved for voluntary
dismissal so as to avoid ever having its claim judged on the merits knowing it had a low
likelihood of success.”).
MINUTE ORDER - 2
1 consultant for MaverickEye. See, e.g., Arheidt Decl. (C17-988, docket no. 6). Nowhere
in Arheidt’s declarations does he indicate that either he or MaverickEye is licensed in
2 Washington to conduct private investigation work. See RCW 18.165.150 (performing the
functions of a private investigator without a license is a gross misdemeanor); see also
3 RCW 18.165.010(12)(e) (defining a “private investigator agency” to include a person or
entity that is in the business of “detecting, discovering, or revealing . . . [e]vidence to be
4 used before a court”). Plaintiff’s counsel has apparently been aware since October 2016,
when he received a letter concerning LHF Productions, Inc. v. Collins, C16-1017 RSM,
5 that Arheidt might be committing a crime by engaging in unlicensed surveillance of
Washington citizens,2 but he did not disclose this fact to the Court or offer any analysis
6 for why such conduct is not prohibited by RCW 18.165.150. Plaintiff’s counsel’s lack of
candor was a serious breach of his ethical duties, particularly because he sought relief
7 from the limitation on discovery set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) on
an ex parte basis. See Wash. RPC 3.3.
Plaintiff is DIRECTED to show cause within twenty-eight (28) days of the
9 date of this Minute Order why its claims in each captioned action should not be dismissed
with prejudice (and any funds it has received in settlement should not be disgorged) for
10 one or more of the following reasons: (a) failure to comply with Local Civil Rule 7.1(a);
(b) failure to establish that plaintiff is properly formed as a limited liability company
11 under California law; and/or (c) failure to state a cognizable claim.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d), and in light of the sworn
response filed on December 19, 2017, docket no. 44 in C17-990, defendant Jonathan
13 Dutczak’s motion to dismiss, docket no. 22 in C17-990, will be treated as a motion for
summary judgment, and is RENOTED to February 16, 2018. On or before February 12,
14 2018, Dutczak shall submit a declaration under oath, not to exceed two (2) pages in
length, concerning whether he used BitTorrent technology to view, download, or share
15 any portion of the motion picture “Once Upon a Time in Venice” on June 18, 2017, at
21:09:43 UTC (2:09:43 p.m. Seattle time) as alleged in the Amended Complaint
The Court has recently become aware that Arheidt is the latest in a series of German declarants
(Darren M. Griffin, Daniel Macek, Daniel Susac, Tobias Fieser, Michael Patzer) who might be
aliases or even fictitious. See Lynch Decls. (docket nos. 81 & 120), Elf-Man, LLC v. Lamberson,
E.D. Wash. Case No. 2:13-cv-395-TOR; Clay Decl. (docket no. 65-1), Clear Skies Nevada, LLC
v. Anderson, N.D. Ill. Case No. 1:15-cv-6708; see also Reply, Leaverton v. Killer Joe Nevada,
L.L.C., 8th Cir. Case No. 14-3274, 2015 WL 636262. Plaintiff will not be permitted to rely on
Arheidt’s declarations or underlying data without explaining to the Court’s satisfaction Arheidt’s
relationship to the above-listed declarants and producing proof beyond a reasonable doubt of
Such declaration shall contain the following attestation: “I declare under penalty of perjury that
22 the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on [date]. [Signature].” See 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
MINUTE ORDER - 3
1 (C17-990, docket no. 16). If Dutczak was not at home at the time in question, he may,
but is not required to, indicate his whereabouts and, if possible, provide supporting
2 documentation. Any supplemental response by plaintiff shall not exceed five (5) pages in
length and shall be filed by the new noting date.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel
4 of record and to all pro se defendants.
Dated this 8th day of January, 2017.
William M. McCool
MINUTE ORDER - 4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?